|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vanexelent
Retired Number
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 30081
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm offended the WH has never donned the P&G when the Lakers have visited. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lakersken80
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38822
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Its been a very bad week in the deep south.....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersken80 wrote: | | Its been a very bad week in the deep south..... |
It's always been bad for the deep south. That's why they are such miserable human beings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now that's just rubbing salt in the wound. That pic kinda reeks of piling on. As reprehensible little creatures as bigots are, they aren't complete degenerates and have some feelings worthy of being respected. The idea wasn't to necessarily celebrate gays, but rather to stop discriminating against fellow Americans and allowing all Americans to enjoy non-disparate treatment. 
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
I pretty much agree with you.
While I feel happy for.my friends and family that can now marry, I am disturbed by the ramifications that come from who's when it comes to Federal power. The Supreme Court, who's only job is to interpret the Constitution, actually created something new that wasn't in the Constitution.
Equal protection would have been a better way to go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means.
Last edited by Reflexx on Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That's actually pretty cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: |
Now that's just rubbing salt in the wound. That pic kinda reeks of piling on. As reprehensible little creatures as bigots are, they aren't complete degenerates and have some feelings worthy of being respected. The idea wasn't to necessarily celebrate gays, but rather to stop discriminating against fellow Americans and allowing all Americans to enjoy non-disparate treatment. |
There's nothing wrong with celebrating the fact that this nation has finally lived up to full embracing"With Liberty and Justice for All
There's no WOUND to rub salt in when it comes to the bigots. The only wound that existed was the injustice that has been going on for those in the gay community until now.
This idea that we should be sympathetic to the bigots because they got dealt a blow today is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this subject.
"Piling on"? Get real. That's a laughably stupid comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means. |
Yeah, you're right. There's are all kinds of negatives to allowing people to marry regardless of their respective genders. This is the first step towards the downfall of America.
God help us. Oh wait, he's supposed to be separate from the State. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means. |
Yeah, you're right. There's are all kinds of negatives to allowing people to marry regardless of their respective genders. This is the first step towards the downfall of America.
God help us. Oh wait, he's supposed to be separate from the State. |
By the "means" I'm not referring to gay marriage itself. I'm referring to the decision to make a right for everyone when it didn't exist in the Constitution before this. Straight people never had a Constitutional right to marriage.
Now I'm not against the idea of creating an amendment to create a right to marriage. But that doesn't exist yet.
They should have used something in the Constitution or existing precedence to justify their decision instead, like equal protection. Instead, they created new powers, which they are not supposed to do. They exist only to interpret the Constitution.
I dont mind the end result. It's wonderful. But I am always wary of when government gives itself more power. That is something everyone should be wary of.
Last edited by Reflexx on Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:02 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: |
Now that's just rubbing salt in the wound. That pic kinda reeks of piling on. As reprehensible little creatures as bigots are, they aren't complete degenerates and have some feelings worthy of being respected. The idea wasn't to necessarily celebrate gays, but rather to stop discriminating against fellow Americans and allowing all Americans to enjoy non-disparate treatment. |
There's nothing wrong with celebrating the fact that this nation has finally lived up to full embracing"With Liberty and Justice for All
There's no WOUND to rub salt in when it comes to the bigots. The only wound that existed was the injustice that has been going on for those in the gay community until now.
This idea that we should be sympathetic to the bigots because they got dealt a blow today is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this subject.
"Piling on"? Get real. That's a laughably stupid comment. |
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means. |
Yeah, you're right. There's are all kinds of negatives to allowing people to marry regardless of their respective genders. This is the first step towards the downfall of America.
God help us. Oh wait, he's supposed to be separate from the State. |
By the "means" I'm not referring to gay marriage. I'm referring to the decision to make marriage a right for everyone when it didn't exist in the Constitution before this.
They should have used something in the Constitution or existing precedence to justify their decision instead, like equal protection. Instead, they created new powers, which they are not supposed to do. They exist only to interpret the Constitution.
I dont mind the end result. It's wonderful. But I am always wary of when government gives itself more power. That is something everyone should be wary of. |
You mean like giving personhood to non-breathing, non-bleeding, entities? 
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reflexx
Franchise Player
Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 11163
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means. |
Yeah, you're right. There's are all kinds of negatives to allowing people to marry regardless of their respective genders. This is the first step towards the downfall of America.
God help us. Oh wait, he's supposed to be separate from the State. |
By the "means" I'm not referring to gay marriage. I'm referring to the decision to make marriage a right for everyone when it didn't exist in the Constitution before this.
They should have used something in the Constitution or existing precedence to justify their decision instead, like equal protection. Instead, they created new powers, which they are not supposed to do. They exist only to interpret the Constitution.
I dont mind the end result. It's wonderful. But I am always wary of when government gives itself more power. That is something everyone should be wary of. |
You mean like giving personhood to non-breathing, non-bleeding, entities? |
I clarified while you responded.
I'm all for Constitutional amendments that move us forward.
But things not in the Constitution are powers reserved to the states.
I'm fine with the end result of today. I just think they should have justified it in a way that was within their existing powers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DMR, what you may be ignoring in your rush to support this decision was there was a way to get to the same result (the result both you and I want) while taking a different and less dangerous path. The problem is that the Supreme Court took a path it didn't need to take and, by doing so, may have created a lot of problems that could have an effect on a lot of other cases. This decision will be used by us lawyers in ways that could be very harmful, that have nothing to do with gay marriage or equal rights.
This isn't about lawyers needing to get over themselves. This is about separation of powers, which, in my opinion, is the most important facet we have of government. The Supreme Court may have ended with the right moral decision, but how they got there is quite dangerous, especially in light of their ability to get to the same place in a more reasonable way. The decision comes very close to usurping the powers of the legislature, if not out right doing it.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Last edited by LakerSanity on Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:29 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dominator
Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2005
Posts: 8679
Location: Irvine
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aussiesuede wrote: |
Now that's just rubbing salt in the wound. That pic kinda reeks of piling on. As reprehensible little creatures as bigots are, they aren't complete degenerates and have some feelings worthy of being respected. The idea wasn't to necessarily celebrate gays, but rather to stop discriminating against fellow Americans and allowing all Americans to enjoy non-disparate treatment. |
No they don't. They're cretins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means. |
Yeah, you're right. There's are all kinds of negatives to allowing people to marry regardless of their respective genders. This is the first step towards the downfall of America.
God help us. Oh wait, he's supposed to be separate from the State. |
By the "means" I'm not referring to gay marriage. I'm referring to the decision to make marriage a right for everyone when it didn't exist in the Constitution before this.
They should have used something in the Constitution or existing precedence to justify their decision instead, like equal protection. Instead, they created new powers, which they are not supposed to do. They exist only to interpret the Constitution.
I dont mind the end result. It's wonderful. But I am always wary of when government gives itself more power. That is something everyone should be wary of. |
You mean like giving personhood to non-breathing, non-bleeding, entities? |
I clarified while you responded.
I'm all for Constitutional amendments that move us forward. |
| Reflexx wrote: | | Now I'm not against the idea of creating an amendment to create a right to marriage. But that doesn't exist yet. |
Well that's pretty much my argument when it comes to gun control. While I'd love for their to be more control of firearms, until we first dispense with the process of amending the constitution, it's putting the cart before the horse. It's also why I argue that until we amend the constitution, there should be no restrictions of my mounting a hellfire cannon to the roof of my house.
But if the Supreme Court is going to do something like creating rights for fictional entities not mentioned in the constitution and giving them inordinate powers over the people, then I'm ok with them alos erring in favor of the people. Fact is, they've already started the slide down the slippery slope you legitimately fear. I know what it'll take to stop the slide. I've little faith that Americans will do what it takes though.
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: |
I dont mind the end result. It's wonderful. But I am always wary of when government gives itself more power. That is something everyone should be wary of. |
Except when the government is giving power to the people.
The one thing I do love about these situations is that the people who complain about them can't help but out themselves.
They claim they are are happy with it, but they are worried about how it "empowers the Government". And yet they are completely ignorant to the irony of what they are saying.
I get it. The bigots lost today. That worries some people. I can see why hiding behind, "the government is getting too big for it's britches" would be a logical fall back position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with the decision is that it essentially created marriage as a fundamental right. Now, it then went to say its a fundamental right for all (straight or gay), but there is nothing in the constitution which makes marriage a fundamental right. The opinion then goes on to talk about how it is such an important right that this decision, essentially, cannot wait for the legislature to catch up. In doing so, the opinion itself acknowledges that it is essentially legislating in place of the legislature (Congress).
The Court could have easily said that marriage is not a fundamental right, but if the legislature is going to make it a right, then it must be made a right for all (straight or gay) under the protections of the 14th amendment. When gay marriage was made legal by the Court, that's the type of decision and rationale everyone anticipated. Instead, we got this marriage is a fundamental right stuff, which itself is a dangerous statement to say (because its not found in the constitution anywhere), but that decision is even more dangerous because it reflects the Court creating a right, in marriage, not just gay marriage, that never previously existed, was never voted on and never went through the executive branch to approve of while also create the legal grounds and framework to justify the Supreme Court, and now other courts, to be able to do so. Imagine what other "rights," whether good or bad, the courts may decide to create using this precedent as justification in the future.
The judicial branch just expanded its powers. That's concerning.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DMR... I take exception to your post (to the extent it applied to me at all). I am not a bigot and loved the decision when I first heard about it, before I read it. Once I read the decision and looked past the result, there were some concerns. I love the end result, but, from a legal perspective, it is concerning as I have described in my posts above.
Sorry if that is being a bit of a Debbie downer. Don't mean to be. Wouldn't have even addressed it but for AH's post in the thread. It's more of an intellectual thing than my dissatisfaction with this historical day. I can be both happy with the result, while being concerned about the legal and political implications (unrelated to the right of same sex couples to marry) for the future.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aussiesuede
Franchise Player
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 10964
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | The problem with the decision is that it essentially created marriage as a fundamental right. Now, it then went to say its a fundamental right for all (straight or gay), but there is nothing in the constitution which makes marriage a fundamental right. The opinion then goes on to talk about how it is such an important right that this decision, essentially, cannot wait for the legislature to catch up. In doing so, the opinion itself acknowledges that it is essentially legislating in place of the legislature (Congress).
The Court could have easily said that marriage is not a fundamental right, but if the legislature is going to make it a right, then it must be made a right for all (straight or gay) under the protections of the 14th amendment. When gay marriage was made legal by the Court, that's the type of decision and rationale everyone anticipated. Instead, we got this marriage is a fundamental right stuff, which itself is a dangerous statement to say (because its not found in the constitution anywhere), but that decision is even more dangerous because it reflects the Court creating a right, in marriage, not just gay marriage, that never previously existed, was never voted on and never went through the executive branch to approve of while also create the legal grounds and framework to justify the Supreme Court, and now other courts, to be able to do so. Imagine what other "rights," whether good or bad, the courts may decide to create using this precedent as justification in the future.
The judicial branch just expanded its powers. That's concerning. |
Can you see the credible argument of "Same Sex" Corporate Marriages leading to legal monopolies? With personhood, why would corporations be restricted from same sex marriages?
_________________
I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^No, that's a different issue. Pretty far fetched. Technically, the Court can do whatever it wants. However, that would be insane. Much more than just Citizens United insane.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KobeBryantCliffordBrown
Star Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2008
Posts: 6429
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reflexx wrote: | | Aussiesuede wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Reflexx wrote: | | DaMuleRules wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Politically, I'm on board with this.
Legally, I read all of the opinions, and honestly I think Roberts' dissent was dead on the money. Forget the bluster from Scalia (who seems to enjoy getting quoted in the press) and Thomas (who is a pure ideologue).
The problem is that the Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of substantive due process. In plain English, the Supreme Court created a right that does not appear in the Constitution and used it to strike down an enormous number of state laws that came from the democratic process. From a legal perspective, that is startling.
I expected the Court to rule on the basis of equal protection, but the Court mentioned that theory only in passing. In plain English, I expected the Court to say that granting the right to marriage to heterosexuals while denying it to homosexuals is a classification that lacks any legitimate basis -- it denies equal protection of the law. But the Court really didn't go that way. I don't understand why.
I'm sure this sounds theoretical and academic to most of you. But make no mistake -- the use of substantive due process here is a big deal for constitutional law. There is a great deal of force in Roberts' discussion of the Lochner decision and the danger of unelected judges creating new rights.
Even though I approve of the end result, the path chosen by the majority makes this a questionable decision. |
There comes a point where lawyers have to get over themselves and let the right things happen.
While this may be a nation of laws, this is a nation that was founded for the people.
The problem with lawyers is they get so wrapped up in the law (and their sense of self importance from arguing the laws), that they can't see the forrest for the trees - and your post is the perfect example of that.
That's not a personal shot, just a general observation of lawyers in general. There's too much focus on the minutia of "the law" and not enough on doing the right thing.
And that's why lawyers have been despised for centuries.
Again, not a personal shot. You guys just can't help yourselves. You're trained to put the law over people. |
This is really about precedent when it comes to the power of the Supreme Court. They just pretty much gave themselves new powers.
Before this, straight people didn't have a Constitutional right to marriage.
I understand why many feel that the ends justify the means. After all, they are happy ends and we don't immediately see any negatives from the means. |
Yeah, you're right. There's are all kinds of negatives to allowing people to marry regardless of their respective genders. This is the first step towards the downfall of America.
God help us. Oh wait, he's supposed to be separate from the State. |
By the "means" I'm not referring to gay marriage. I'm referring to the decision to make marriage a right for everyone when it didn't exist in the Constitution before this.
They should have used something in the Constitution or existing precedence to justify their decision instead, like equal protection. Instead, they created new powers, which they are not supposed to do. They exist only to interpret the Constitution.
I dont mind the end result. It's wonderful. But I am always wary of when government gives itself more power. That is something everyone should be wary of. |
You mean like giving personhood to non-breathing, non-bleeding, entities? |
I clarified while you responded.
I'm all for Constitutional amendments that move us forward.
But things not in the Constitution are powers reserved to the states.
I'm fine with the end result of today. I just think they should have justified it in a way that was within their existing powers. |
I don't think you addressed his point. You act as if this is some sort of new thing for SCOTUS. They have been creating new rights for all sorts of entities for centuries. For example, the 14th amendment was used to grant corporations rights long before it was used to grant rights to the group of people for which it was specifically designed. You need to turn off Foxnoose.
_________________
“It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52663
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerSanity wrote: | DMR, what you may be ignoring in your rush to support this decision was there was a way to get to the same result (the result both you and I want) while taking a different and less dangerous path. The problem is that the Supreme Court took a path it didn't need to take and, by doing so, may have created a lot of problems that could have an effect on a lot of other cases. This decision will be used by us lawyers in ways that could be very harmful, that have nothing to do with gay marriage or equal rights.
This isn't about lawyers needing to get over themselves. This is about separation of powers, which, in my opinion, is the most important facet we have of government. The Supreme Court may have ended with the right moral decision, but how they got there is quite dangerous, especially in light of their ability to get to the same place in a more reasonable way. The decision comes very close to usurping the powers of the legislature, if not right out doing it. |
I am actually not ignoring anything. I'm well aware of the whole idea of legal precedent. I'm also well aware of how lawyers come along to re-establish legal precedent when it suits them. There was a Roe V. Wade ruling decades ago that set a precedent decades ago and now we have lawyers looking to set that back.
And that's why I say that lawyers are a generally self-absorbed bunch of hypocrites. They claim to care about the people, and the "Law", but really all they care about is their personal goal - a goal that is going to conveniently change based on their case of the day.
The SCOTUS made a great decision today. One that is completely in line with the ideas of Liberty and Justice that this nation was founded on.
The only people who are taking issue with it are bigots and lawyers who care more about the "law" than they do about people.
The law is always self correcting. If a "precedent " is set, there will eventually be a situation that comes along where someone tries to establish a new one.
Which is why at the end of the day, one should simply be happy that the right to equality was a precedent set today.
You lawyers will figure out how to skate around that when you need to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerSanity
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is a fair point to say that, with Citizen's United and the Hobby Lobby decision, the Court has been doing a lot of "creating new rights" lately. At least this time, that legal stretch was used for something good.
DMR - nothing scares me more than the Court system and how I have seen that system abused. You say it is self correcting, but a lot has happened in the last 10 years that is quite scary. You should be concerned about Judges much more than lawyers, since they are the ones, not lawyers, who make all the decisions.
And of course lawyers would be the only ones to take an issue with it (other than biggots), because no one else really understands the legal ramifications and/or bothers to look into it.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Last edited by LakerSanity on Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oliver Reed
Star Player
Joined: 28 Sep 2014
Posts: 2626
Location: Globo Gym
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This thread will be locked before its all said and done. Too many whinos.
_________________
Because we're better than you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
